GreecePwns wrote: The latter is what most Christians are guilty of; "this part about [insert undesirable position] doesn't apply anymore solely because society changed," "this part is not part of the Bible because my sect doesn't believe it is."

Indeed, to quote Stephen Fry during the IQ2 debate:

They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!

comic boy wrote:I like Jefferson's appeal to ' Natural law ' , whether one chooses to believe such law is or is not related to a Deity is surely irrelevent to its impact on societal behaviour.

Precisely! Or to put it another way, it is necessary to assume a god in order to prevent any other person from assuming the position in his absence. In other words, rights do not come from the despot of the moment, they simply are.

That, of course, is slightly off topic to this tread. Sorry about that.

They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!

Actually they did not do any such thing. The first papal letter on slavery was, ironically, a few years before the New World was discovered and it was about the treatment of the natives of the Canary Islands.

Granted, the Catholic Church was not exceptionally vocal about slavery in the Americas and it didn't help that most of the letters by the Pope to the bishops in the Untied States were generally ignored, but it is wrong to say that the Catholic Church was ever a supporter of the racial generational slavery (wherein you owned not only the person but the children of said person) as practiced in the United States.

They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!

Actually they did not do any such thing. The first papal letter on slavery was, ironically, a few years before the New World was discovered and it was about the treatment of the natives of the Canary Islands.

Granted, the Catholic Church was not exceptionally vocal about slavery in the Americas and it didn't help that most of the letters by the Pope to the bishops in the Untied States were generally ignored, but it is wrong to say that the Catholic Church was ever a supporter of the racial generational slavery (wherein you owned not only the person but the children of said person) as practiced in the United States.

In 1545 Paul repealed an ancient law that allowed slaves to claim their freedom under the Emperor's statue on Capital Hill, in view of the number of homeless people and tramps in the city of Rome.[14] The decree included those who had become Christians after their enslavement and those born to Christian slaves. The right of inhabitants of Rome to publicly buy and sell slaves of both sexes was affirmed.[15] Stogre (1992) asserts that the lifting of restrictions was due to a shortage of slaves in Rome.[16] In 1548 he authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states.[17]

So a Pope said it's OK to own slaves, but the Catholic church never did?

Wikipedia does have an occasional anti Catholic bias, considering the general nature of anti Catholic editors on the site in general. A better understanding can come from ETWN

Paul III: <Sublimis Deus>, 1537

The pontifical decree known as "The Sublime God" has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, <Sublimis Deus> (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians." It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.

<Sublimis Deus> was intended to be issued as the central pedagogical work against slavery. Two other bulls would be published to implement the teaching of <Sublimis,> one to impose penalties on those who fail to abide by the teaching against slavery, and a second to specify the sacramental consequences of the teaching that the Indians are true men.

...

The common pretext of the allies of "the enemy of the human race," i.e. Satan, for enslaving the Indians was that they lacked the Faith. Some of the Europeans used the reasoning that converting the Indians should be accomplished by any means necessary, thus making the Faith an excuse for war and enslavement. Paul III stated that the practice of this form of servitude was "unheard of before now." This clearly indicates that the practice of enslaving an entire ethnic group of people—the Indians of South America—for no morally justifiable reason was indeed different from anything previously encountered.

...

Thus, we see that Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document <Commissum Nobis>, appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, <Immensa Pastorum>, on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

Hmmm, wikipedia or the global catholic network, which is more likely to give a full account? I read the whole ETWN articla and it doesn't even mention the change in law about claiming freedom or the approval of mulim slaves.

So I went looking, and rejecting any sources that were worded with only as much detail and in a very similar way to wikipedia (becuase I know a lot of sites will quote it without credit). How about the London School of Economics, where I found this paper:

Starts on the catholic section towards the bottom of page 7, I'm not going to quote it in here but it's pretty clear that the early catholic church through until after the time of Paul III, while not all endorsing slavery, often failed to condemn it. Others outright allowed it as long as the slave was a heretic.

I will quote a small section of the Romanus Pontifex, issued by Pope Nicholas V

“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”

(emphasis added by me)

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Nichol05/index.htm - go there and follow the link, giving this link because it shows it's credibility as it's an online source for papal ducuments compiled for catholics and by catholics and administrated by catholics - the link take you to a less catholic source, and then the quoted bit is about half way through the 4th paragraph of the english translation.

And please note I'm not saying catholics today, or all catholics, or whatever are pro-slavery (I might argue that the catholic god is pro-slavery but that's a tangent) but it is clear that the church at times has said that slavery is just fine and authorised it.

GreecePwns wrote:I think the problem with quoting Bible scripture, as Viceroy and others have, to prove that it has "predicted events" (the exact words that Viceroy has used) is indeed that it is so open to interpretation and even direct alteration. If one can interpret the Bible to have predicted X major world event, someone else could use that same verse to say it predicted Y major world event, for example and someone else can say it doesn't predict anything and in fact is a part they don't even believe in.

Which is why most mainline Christians really don't view the predictions in that manner.

GreecePwns wrote:The Bible's vagueness was interpreted as a prediction of a future event, so what? Other religious and nonreligious texts and people have done the same thing - what makes the Bible special in this regard, other than the Bible saying itself that its special in this regard? The only answer Viceroy and Lionz have to that is to quote even MORE Bible scriptures and try to connect them to A or B major world events.

First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.

GreecePwns wrote: What about the predictions that the Bible was wrong on?

Show me one. I am not aware of any. (seriously!)

GreecePwns wrote:What about . To have total faith in whatever interpretation you have of a book, that interpretation must have some semblance of logic that applies to the entire text instead of an interpretation that depends on cherrypicking the parts that make you happy and ignoring the ones that don't. The latter is what most Christians are guilty of; "this part about [insert undesirable position] doesn't apply anymore solely because society changed," "this part is not part of the Bible because my sect doesn't believe it is."

Whoah, that is a pretty high standard you put forward.Basically, you want a point by point detailed guidebook that gives you specifics on each aspect. You might consider Orthodox Judaism. Christianity, to contrast is more general. Christ gave us a new covenant, not that utterly did away with the old laws, but that said, essentially "OK folks, you don't need to get so bogged down in the details", or "you are grownups, now, not children. I give you the general guidelines and you can find the real answers yourself" (you can say some Jews do and always have done this.. thus the nuances and variations in Judaism, but remember Christ did generate an offshoot faith that is quite different from Judaism.).

GreecePwns wrote:In other words, if you're gonna quote the Bible to show it predicted major world events and therefore is the one and only true religious text, you have to do three things:1. Define "major world event".2. Show that the Bible predicted all major world events OR (show that it was never wrong in its predictions AND show that these predictions occur throughout the text).3. Show that the Bible is a better predictor of major world events than other religious and nonreligious predictors, not only from its time but from more modern sources as well, in ways that don't involve the Bible or Christianity calling itself the best.

#2-- basically yeah, except why does a prediction have to be repeated "throughout the text" a prediction stated once that comes true is enough...#3 This is a pretty high standard, one you would not ask of science. That is, believing one faith doesn't mean that you say everything in every other faith is false. In fact, to persist, any religion must have portions of "the" truth. If Chemistry and Geology both predict something similar, it doesn't take away from either line of thinking, it tends to give more credibility to the prediction. Similarly, many religions dance around some of the same truths. You have to look at the whole, not just bits and pieces. One prediction, one idea that is true doesn't necessarily prove a religion correct. Often it just means multiple religions have grasped some fundamental truth.

Or, put it another way... ever play telephone? Or just read the newspapers for science "facts". If you compare what is published in the journals to what is put forward was "fact" in the media, you get a wide range of variation. The Bible, for a Christian, is equivalent to the science journal. Church doctrine, dialogue, etc are more like the newsprint. Some are more accurate than others.

GreecePwns wrote:On top of that, such a viewpoint involves combining the question of whether or not Almighty Stuff exists with the question of deciding a "correct" religious text and interpretation of that text. These questions are separate, and treating them as one and the same inherently involves acting on knowledge of the supernatural that no one has, making the position unfalsifiable until we know for sure that Almighty Stuff exists.

TL;DR Those on the religious side continue to dance around the glaring unfalsifiability and circularity problems, despite their best attempts to distract from it.

It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, percieving things than modern science does.

The best example I can give would be in the many gross misunderstandings or disdainfull assessments of Native American knowledge. Only now have we reached, well a "maturity" perhaps to recognize that not everything they said was garbage, even if the logic upon which it was based, the way of analysis, etc were or just seemed different from the western way of thinking. Ironically, we now are often as critical of many things considered "fact" or "unquestionable" as we are of Native American ideas, perhaps more. I saw plenty of very upright and religious people in CA who did not wear long woolen stockings and heavy caps in 100 degree heat (some Mennonites and such, though they usually don't wear wool anymore). BUT here is the thing... if you talk to folks in the 1800's or even modern folks who adhere to one of the very concervative groups, they will often declare that they must dress how they do because God dictates it (more or less.. there are nuances there). However, there is no place in the Bible where it says this. There is a declaration to dress modestly, but "modesty" is a contextual concept that varies in time and place. There is talk of wearing your head covered, but it is written in the context of a particular place and situation.

The fundaments of Christianity were set out in the Bible "Love thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself". "Believe in him and ye shall be saved". The rest of the Bible falls into a variety of categories. Some is history, history as interpreted by individual people, but with the guidance of God. Are they false because they differ or is this a recognition that if you ask 2 people to describe ANY event they will give you slightly different accounts? Also, just saying that you give different accounts and saying that one falsifies the other are 2 different issues. If I stand on a streetcorner and someone else is on a roof, and a third down the street from an event we will all see different things and give different, but each true, accounts. Most scholars say that variations in the recording of events falls into that category, along with the idea that different people actually want to give slightly different messages.. much like you can learn the same subject from 2 different professors and while the fundamentals will be the same, the details may vary greatly (and each be true and valid!).

Again, you basically say that for a Bible, religious text to be true, it must be like a detailed scientific text... But that is a standard that even most science texts actually don't meet fully. Religious texts don't even try to make that base. In fact, they are made/written for people who largely have little concept of our modern idea of science that that type of thinking, that type of proof requirement. Their whole way of approaching the world differed from that of a scientist, so naturally any texts passed down will not be science texts. Demanding they are is like missionaries who saw natives dressed in skimpy clothing declaring that they lack sense and morals becuase they did not act as the Europeans did.

PLAYER57832 wrote:It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, perceiving things than modern science does.

I would disagree with one point; religious texts were written with the science of the day in the minds of the writers. The writings were not a "science" textbook, however. They were not strict history books as we generally consider history books today. The truth of the Bible does not imply that everything is scientifically correct. (Let's face it, a hundred years from now people will laugh at some of the things we believed were scientific "facts.") The books of the Bible need to be considered in the context they were written in and the purpose for the writing of the book in the first place.

"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go."

Not understanding the purpose of a book of the Bible is the surest way of totally missing the point of the book of the Bible.

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists...

Player, you really should be more careful with your words. I never said that I am a representative of "Mainstream Christianity". In fact I attest that mainstream "Christianity" is nothing more than ancient paganism renewed and revived. The fact is that true Christianity is nowhere to be found. So I really don't know what you are referring to when you say "Mainline Christianity?" The true Christians of the world must all be hiding up in the hills or something because true Christianity just doesn't exist as I see it. I will say that I am a representative of the truth. But in a world based on lies, who really has time for the truth?

I mean if the bible was written in a certain time and place, and tailored to the understanding of the people of that time and place, wouldn't it make sense to have another go with modern global sensibilities in mind? And how would one go about getting the divine go-ahead on that? Or did the original authors not have some sort of divine sanction for their writing?

I'm not talking here about some re-translation into the modern vernacular, and please God (if you're there) don't let anyone ever attempt anything like the tacky "Treat me cool, Lord" from the 70's.

I mean, a new revelation is about due if we have to have reams of notes on context, on semantics, and so forth to even begin to understand the original..

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.

What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?

Whoah, that is a pretty high standard you put forward.Basically, you want a point by point detailed guidebook that gives you specifics on each aspect.

No, I want a rational reason behind ignoring verse X, a rational reason for taking verse Y literally, and a rational reason for leaving verse Z open to hundreds of interpretations.

#2-- basically yeah, except why does a prediction have to be repeated "throughout the text" a prediction stated once that comes true is enough...

#3 This is a pretty high standard, one you would not ask of science. That is, believing one faith doesn't mean that you say everything in every other faith is false. In fact, to persist, any religion must have portions of "the" truth. If Chemistry and Geology both predict something similar, it doesn't take away from either line of thinking, it tends to give more credibility to the prediction. Similarly, many religions dance around some of the same truths. You have to look at the whole, not just bits and pieces. One prediction, one idea that is true doesn't necessarily prove a religion correct. Often it just means multiple religions have grasped some fundamental truth.

Viceroy and Lionz say that the Bible's predictive power is the justification for everything else in the book. For the Bible's predictive power to be a complete justification for the Biblical idea of the supernatural (that a omnipotent, omnipresent god created the world in 6 literal or figurative days depending on who you ask 6,000 or 6 billion years ago depending on who you ask and one day chose some girl to give birth to someone while apparently being a virgin(!) and that her son was actually god himself, but simultaneously god's son and he died and came back to life), there must be many predictions of major world events throughout the text that are proven true instead of a few isolated incidents. On top of that, since many religions and nonreligious sources make similar predictions, there has to be some reason which makes the Bible more believable than the Quran, Torah, Sports Illustrated, a scientific journal, a philosopher's writing, or literally any other source of predictions.

Or, put it another way... ever play telephone? Or just read the newspapers for science "facts". If you compare what is published in the journals to what is put forward was "fact" in the media, you get a wide range of variation. The Bible, for a Christian, is equivalent to the science journal. Church doctrine, dialogue, etc are more like the newsprint. Some are more accurate than others.

See the first point I made. This part is particularly laughable, because it's an argument in favor of taking the entirety of the Bible literally.

It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, percieving things than modern science does.

It's not scientific approach that's the problem, its a complete and total disregard for logic. As in my quote below:

GreecePwns wrote:TL;DR Those on the religious side continue to dance around the glaring unfalsifiability and circularity problems of their belief, despite their best attempts to distract from it.

Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.

jonesthecurl wrote:Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?Just you?You and some of the authorities you quote?You and the Radio Church of God?

Hey, that is God's business not yours. You just worry about yourself and the final judgment that is appointed unto each one of us.

"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."-Daniel 7:10

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"-Hebrews 9:27

Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors.

(The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!

God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too. Through clairvoyants (such as Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce), mediums, spiritists, and others, come remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy, never with total accuracy. Messages from Satan, furthermore, fail to match the detail of Bible prophecies, nor do they include a call to repentance.

Viceroy63 wrote:Prophecies revealed by fallen spiritual beings are never as accurate or far reached as those given by God through his word.-Viceroy63

The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error.

As economy does not permit an explanation of all the Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, what follows in a discussion of a few that exemplify the high degree of specificity, the range of projection, and/or the "supernature" of the predicted events. Readers are encouraged to select others, as well, and to carefully examine their historicity.

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

(5) The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.

(6) Mighty Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travelers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22 and Jeremiah 51:26, 43). Their description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel.

(7) The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.

(8) The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24).

This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment—in our lifetime.

(9) Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.

(10) Joshua prophesied that Jericho would be rebuilt by one man. He also said that the man's eldest son would die when the reconstruction began and that his youngest son would die when the work reached completion (Joshua 6:26). About five centuries later this prophecy found its fulfillment in the life and family of a man named Hiel (1 Kings 16:33-34).

(12) Jahaziel prophesied that King Jehoshaphat and a tiny band of men would defeat an enormous, well-equipped, well-trained army without even having to fight. Just as predicted, the King and his troops stood looking on as their foes were supernaturally destroyed to the last man (2 Chronicles 20).

(13) One prophet of God (unnamed, but probably Shemiah) said that a future king of Judah, named Josiah, would take the bones of all the occultic priests (priests of the "high places") of Israel's King Jeroboam and burn them on Jeroboam's altar (1 Kings 13:2 and 2 Kings 23:15-18). This event occurred approximately 300 years after it was foretold.

Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)—that chance = 1 in 1080. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.

Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document, there is every reason to expect that the remaining 500 prophecies, those slated for the "time of the end," also will be fulfilled to the last letter. Who can afford to ignore these coming events, much less miss out on the immeasurable blessings offered to anyone and everyone who submits to the control of the Bible's author, Jesus Christ? Would a reasonable person take lightly God's warning of judgment for those who reject what they know to be true about Jesus Christ and the Bible, or who reject Jesus' claim on their lives?

*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited: •Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D. •Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10. •Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.

Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105.

jonesthecurl wrote:Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?Just you?You and some of the authorities you quote?You and the Radio Church of God?

Hey, that is God's business not yours. You just worry about yourself and the final judgment that is appointed unto each one of us.

"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."-Daniel 7:10

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"-Hebrews 9:27

Well. if it's only you, you might to do a little re-evaluating.I'm not asking GOd, I'm asking you.And you made that my business by preaching at me.

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.

What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?

Woah, hold on there. All I said is that they weren't simply using the silly circular argument, "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say. I agree with them that God exists and that the Bible is his word to man (I think players### would say the same, and she and I agree on almost nothing else) but there are various things that each of them have said with which I would not want to be associated.

I suppose I agree with a lot of what they both say about the Bible being consistent with archaeology and making unannily accurate predictions through history, but I really don't think that's a worthwhile line to take in a forum like this, and have not done so.

The point I would like to make from all this, and I think Players would agree with me here too, is that other than a very VERY, few beliefs that are the absolute common ground, any doctrrine expressed by any Christian is no excuse for rejecting Christ as savior.

You don't believe that Genesis is literal? Fine; dont. Lots of Christians don't. (I'll go out on a limb here) You don't believe that homosexuality is an aberration and a spiritual problem that can be healed? Fine; don't. Lots of Christians don't.

You wouldn't side with those who don't believe those things because you think they are being inconsistent, "cherry-picking", and compromising? Fine, don't. Take your stand with the hard-liners. I really don't care, and I don't believe God does either.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

It's not just the inconsistencies between positions that many people have problems with daddy, it's inconsistencies within each position (or at least all of the non-100%-literal or non-100%-symbolic positions). How does anyone (christian or otherwise) decide which bits of the bible are literal truth, and which bits are symbolism and parable intended to guide us towards moral truth without being meant to be taken literally? And who decides which is which? And why does, for instance, your interpretation have more significance for you than Viceroy's (and vice versa) if you're both talking about the same immutable thing (absolute moral truth)?

Is God's absolute moral truth actually a mutable and constantly changing thing as fits the culture (because every culture has different moral standards and the biblee has been influential in many of these different settings), or is it a fixed and unchanging thing (and if so why does biblical interpretation change over the centuries)?

jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?

Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?

I have read the entire bible for myself thank you, as I have many other religious works. I have never read any historical documentation detailing the amount that Judas was paid for betraying Jesus. I'm pretty certain there are none.Perhaps you could help me out?Or have you just accepted what the good Doctor said as yet another unimpeachable authority? You seem to have a lot of them.

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.

What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?

Woah, hold on there. All I said is that they weren't simply using the silly circular argument, "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say. I agree with them that God exists and that the Bible is his word to man (I think players### would say the same, and she and I agree on almost nothing else) but there are various things that each of them have said with which I would not want to be associated.

I suppose I agree with a lot of what they both say about the Bible being consistent with archaeology and making unannily accurate predictions through history, but I really don't think that's a worthwhile line to take in a forum like this, and have not done so.

The point I would like to make from all this, and I think Players would agree with me here too, is that other than a very VERY, few beliefs that are the absolute common ground, any doctrrine expressed by any Christian is no excuse for rejecting Christ as savior.

You don't believe that Genesis is literal? Fine; dont. Lots of Christians don't. (I'll go out on a limb here) You don't believe that homosexuality is an aberration and a spiritual problem that can be healed? Fine; don't. Lots of Christians don't.

You wouldn't side with those who don't believe those things because you think they are being inconsistent, "cherry-picking", and compromising? Fine, don't. Take your stand with the hard-liners. I really don't care, and I don't believe God does either.

I just reckon you have to have an incredibly high opinion of your species to imagine any of them can reliably interpret the word of the ultimate creator,should one exist.The word that best describes this is fatuousness,or stupid vanity.